Talk:Google offers to help Wikipedia

Problems

This is also a source, but not much is available yet on this, I figure: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-February/002181.html

See also: m:Google hosting (by Angela Beesley)

Although there is, potentially, an article in here I would strongly suggest that Wikinews not create an article based on rumour but, instead, either interview members of the foundation board about the situation or wait until an official announcement is made. - Amgine 02:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on that we don't creat an article based only on rumor, and particularly the Foundation related matters it would be better to have an interview with a Trustee.

Well, but please forgive me to stock an external link. There seem to be rumors about it here and there ...

http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1038_3-5572744.html?ex=1108789200&en=2955debe6a2ea165&ei=5070

Sorry, I didn't notice the discussion. Just the article request. I think it is quite imprecise news but not a rumor anymore. Other News sites cite Wikipedia administrators and Google shows up 51 news on this topic [1]. I'm a bit disappointed that i read of it in the NY Times first and not on Wikinews. I mean if Wikipedia isn't important for us, for who then ? Feel free to cut it down or add an Interview. Greetings, --Sweets 11:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is riddled with problems - it's just totally inaccurate. Dan100 (Talk) 01:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not write the following deconstruction, someone else did. Although I agree with it. Dan100 (Talk) 10:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Google Inc. plans to host Wikipedia.

No, they've just proposed it. There's no evidence they're actually planning to do it.

Well that is true, they offered to host parts of Wikipedia. I simply deduced that you have to have the intention and a plan to make such a proposition. --Sweets 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Google made an initial offer to the Wikimedia Board.

The source page at m:google hosting just said "Google Inc. have made a proposal". Where do you get the information that they made the proposal "to the Wikimedia Board"? This is speculation.

See the version of m:google hosting as i wrote the article [2]. That was before Angela changed it with this comment: "removing my name from it since it makes that would make it seem more official, not less". --Sweets 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It will be discussed by the members of the Wikimedia Board and Wikimedia developers.

This implies the developers will see the proposal. Where is this information from?

Good Question, one source is Neowin and that is probably a citation of this Mailing List post from Daniel Mayer in the Foundation Board list. --Sweets 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In March 2005 the plans will be substantiated in a Meeting with Google represantatives.

A meeting is planned, according to m:google hosting. There's no evidence the plans will be substantiated at it though, and no evidence it will be "Google represantatives" which implies more than one.

You may be right with the assumption that it may be only one Google representative. However i highly doubt it because corporations always like witnesses in meetings. Let me cite an answer of the above mentioned mailing list: [3]

"

Marco Krohn a écrit:
> On Wednesday 09 February 2005 23:58, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> [...]
> 
>>The plan for Google hosting will greatly reduce the amount of
>>money we need to spend as will other hosting offers.
> 
> 
> I'm reading about google hosting for the second time now, but couldn't find 
> anything on meta, wikidev or this mailing list. It sounds interesting, what 
> is meant with it exactly?
> 
> best regards,
>   Marco

It is currently proceeding, but details are not entirely worked out.
We had a first proposal for which we gave feedback last week.

Today, in Standford, Jimbo met with Sergei Brin and Larry Page, who were 
extremely enthousiastic about the whole project.

The board has a meeting planned early march to try to finalize this a 
little bit more.

Ant

" --Sweets 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The steps of Google towards Wikipedia are not surprising.

According to who? Has anyone said it's not surprising or is this original research?

Please read the whole text. It is not surprising because MSN, Yahoo anf Clust.com for example already embedded Encyclopedias in their Web Seach interface. --Sweets 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is possible that Google plans to implement Wikipedia results as an inline feature...

According to what? This is pure speculation.

Yes it is, i didn't know that news papers are not allowed to speculate and interpret the facts. remember i am a freshwoman. --Sweets 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So Google Inc. could run a noneditable Wikpiedia mirror...

Is this relevant? That isn't anything to do with hosting, and since there's been no suggestion that they would do this, I don't see why it's mentioned.

If you care to read some of the news that Google News collects about this topic you will find that many reporters have come to the same conclusions, especially if they know Wikipedia better. --Sweets 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt of the original Wikimedia statement...

It was not a Wikimedia statement. And the extract quoted was not the original.

See the version of m:google hosting as i wrote the article [4]. That was before Angela changed it with this comment: "removing my name from it since it makes that would make it seem more official, not less". --Sweets 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sources: Angela User page

That page was not a source for anything written here.

See the version of m:google hosting as i wrote the article [5]. That was before Angela changed it with this comment: "removing my name from it since it makes that would make it seem more official, not less".

So she had the reported contact with Google and posted about it in this Foundation Board Mailing list. [6]

"

> I'm reading about google hosting for the second time now, but couldn't find
> anything on meta, wikidev or this mailing list. It sounds interesting, what
> is meant with it exactly?

Basically, Google have made a proposal to host some of our
content.There's an introduction at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting, but I'm not sure I can
say much more than that at this stage.

Angela.

"

Enlightened ? Greetings,--Sweets 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article deleted

The article was a copy-paste of Sweets' blog entry, which is licensed under CC-by-sa, which is incompatible with Wikinews' PD licensure. A different article would be gladly considered, since the topic is of obvious interest to Wikinews readers... - Amgine 21:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request Undeletion of Article

I am a freshwoman to Wikinews and have great respect for your experience. I humbly request the revert of this speedy deletion of the article Google plans to help Wikipedia. I now think that you mean that the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license is too restrictive. I realized indeed that it could be difficult for Wikinews to use this text. So i changed the License to Creative Commons Attribution. Future suggestions are welcome.

I am the legitimate owner of the article http://sweetsilhouette.blogspot.com/2005/02/google-wants-to-host-wikipedia-or-its.html and have put it under the most generous and simple license i know. I believe in Collaborative Work and Wikipedia and want to contribute in Wikinews now. However i want to post my articles in my Blog [7] too. That's not as easy as it may seem. If i would write the article in Wikipedia or Wikinews first and later on in my Blog, i would have to add a lengthy origin notice and possibly even put all my content on my webpage under GFDL and add a local copy of the GFDL to refer to.

The other way round is much easier. There is even a decent tool for conversion of HTM2Wiki Markup but i saw this ingenious Wikipedia Tool unfortunately only today. So it was not a copy-paste job but more than 1 hour of adaptation to readable Wiki. I would like to respond to the questions of Dam100 [Freudian slip? :) Dan100 (Talk) 10:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)], but i can't do this if the history is deleted.

I am the legitimate creator of the Blog entry and I can put the text under Public Domain like stated in the edit form. I am aware that Wikinews is currently growing fast and has currently no Copyright policy, but let's just build one through consensus. :-) "2. Avoid copyright violation.

For more, Wikinews:Copyright - not yet created, since we do not have official licensing policy."

Update: Did you read Wikinews:Policies and guidelines/Fair use ? If the licenses Creative Commons CC-BY, Creative Commons CC-BY-SA, BSD license, GNU General Public License are acceptable for images, they should be OK for texts too. Wikinews:Policies and guidelines/Image use policy

PS: Why is there no record of the deletion ? No delete Request no Speedy Deletion Record, nothing. The article and its references vanished as if they never existed. I will remind you of the fact that i did not start the article nor did i the links in Developing Stories. I just extended it. The fact that the collaborative work of some members is deleted for this reason is worrying.

Put some suggestions how to sort this out. Thank you --Sweets 23:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sweets - This article was a copyvio, a subject of considerable sensitivity on Wikinews. In addition, it had factual disputes against it, and it was about to get a POV dispute placed on it. It would be effectively impossible to remove the copyvio from the existing article at the time.

The convention at Wikinews:Policies and guidelines/Fair use is not in force. In fact, due to the current PD licensure of Wikinews no graphics may be uploaded to the site; not even public domain graphics. It is a proposed policy, and should have been marked as such.

Record of the delete can be found using the Special:Log, you'll find the following log entry:

21:29, 14 Feb 2005 Amgine deleted "Google plans to help Wikipedia" (Article previously licensed as CC-by-sa, incompatible with Wikinews' PD requirement)

Since I felt the article topic had merit, I deleted the article and developed a replacement article at Lack of facts no hindrance to speculation about Google, Wikipedia. If you wish to request an undelete of this article, I'll see if I can set up a process for that.

By the way, if you write an article on Wikinews you may then publish it on your blog without any mention of it being published here first, without a link back, restrictions on derivations, or any other requirement. Wikinews currently is released to the public domain. - Amgine 09:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It says at the foot of the editing page "PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!". As Sweets was copy-right holder, she could re-publish her work as and where she fits. Further, deletion was not the proper manner to handle a copyvio - we have the copyvio template for that. Lastly, the article should have not been deleted so the community could work on correcting the objections raised above. Dan100 (Talk) 10:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The foot of the edit page is accurate, however Sweets has not stated she has re-licensed the article under Public Domain, but under CC. Under CC derivative works are still bound by the copyright holder. Wikinews articles are released under the Public Domain, and derivative works are not bound by the copyright holder. - Amgine 19:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To quote from BY 2.0 (which is the license Sweets uses on her blog): "Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder." This is implicitly what Sweets did, and is explained explicitly above. Dan100 (Talk) 20:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Under U.S. copyright law, implicit is not accepted. Sweets explicitly states the article is under CC attribute above. - Amgine 20:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To quote from above:"I am the legitimate creator of the Blog entry and I can put the text under Public Domain like stated in the edit form. Dan100 (Talk) 20:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also on this page: "So i changed the License to Creative Commons Attribution." From the article copied from: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License." From the license link on that site: "Attribution. You must give the original author credit." - Amgine 20:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, that is a discussion about content that is no longer in the article. Second, true i changed the license on my blog page from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 to Creative Commons Attribution. My hope was that ShareAlike was the only licensing problem. Please note that by writing this very lines you and I accept the license under the edit Box "Please note that all contributions to this site are considered to be released into the public domain." When i am the legitimate owner of the text that is perfectly legal. So, yes in Wikinews the text is under public domain and you may change or use it as you like. BTW, that already happened. Regarding attributioen let me quote from a Wikinews IRC chat log

"23:52] <RMacK> amgine: knowing when blogs break news.. this is where tagging could be really useful. [#wikinews 23:52] <Jamesday> re licensing, do remember that in most places, moral rights exists and grants authors the right to be associated with their work." You could leave out the origin of the news/art but it would be a very moment. PD is as far as i understood no license at all and you could do what is not restricted by other rights. Bye, --Sweets 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sweets, allow me to explain how the CC and PD are incompatible. In Public Domain there are no restrictions whatsoever, and the text may be included in other works, modified, translated, whatever, because no one exerts any claim whatsoever. Under CC-by, you claim to own your work, and people can do whatever they wish with it *except* they must include an attribution the work originated from you. This applies to all derivative works, including after it is copied from Wikinews to another site, which is quite different from the Public Domain.

The simple solution is for you to change your license on your site if you want to contribute it to the public domain. If you claim the article is under CC-by on your site, it is both copyrighted and incompatible with the Wikinews licensure.

The request for deletion is not to delete the article in its current format. It is to delete the sections which would be considered copyright violations. The current article would remain, as far as I have requested. - Amgine 00:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eh? So you're listing the article for deletion, with no intention of deleting any of it?

Amgine, calm down. First, the only person who could persue any copyright claim is Sweets herself, and I think that's somewhat unlikely. Secondly, as stated, Sweets is the copyright holder, and she can do as she sees fit with her work. Dan100 (Talk) 00:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you had read the deletion request, you would see I am requesting that some of the article's history be deleted - the parts which would be violations of Sweets' CC-by licensure. I encourage you to make your opinion on this matter known during the Dr period of 5 days. In the meantime, do not remove either the request or the template. - Amgine 00:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

UNdeleted - original author released into PD

I restored this for 2 reasons:

It does not fit speedy delete requirements and deletion did not follow deletion policy by being listed on WN:DR for discussion.
It is not copyvio since original author posted it - turning it over to PD.

-- Davodd | Talk 11:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, unless the author takes specific effort to release a document into the public domain, an article is not in the public domain, even if the author later posts the article publicly. The author has taken a specific effort to license the article first under CC-by-sa, then under CC, none of which are compatible with public domain. - Amgine 18:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I removed the speculation, rewrote awkward parts, and fixed various spelling mistakes and other typos.

If the original objections have been sufficiently addressed to the satisfaction of the contributor who placed the "dispute" tag, please remove the tag at your convenience. — DV 14:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I originally added the dispute tag. I have now removed it. Dan100 (Talk) 00:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, "CC-by-sa" VS "PD licensure"

Could anyone tell me the major differences between the two? King Ho Cheung 18:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Publication date

I put February 17 on the article and put in that day's template as that was the UTC day it was re-listed on Latest news. Adding it to the 16th when it's the 17th seems a little odd! Dan100 (Talk) 01:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)